The largest SRSD effects in rural Grade 5–6 classrooms are for writing reasons and explanations, with smaller effects for topic and ending sentences¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i1–i2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 MANCOVA showed significant main effects favoring the intervention group on total reasons (d = 0.70 posttest; 0.61 maintenance) and total explanations (d = 0.79 posttest; 0.64 maintenance). → Mason et al. 2017 q3 i1 Effects on including a topic sentence were small (d = 0.21 posttest; 0.26 maintenance) because many students already wrote topic sentences at pretest. → Mason et al. 2017 (2)

Evidence¶

Mason et al. 2017¶

Linda H. Mason, Anne Mong Cramer, Justin D. Garwood, Cheryl Varghese, Jill Hamm, and Allen Murray. (2017). Efficacy of Self-Regulated Strategy Development Instruction for Developing Writers With and Without Disabilities in Rural Schools: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 36(4), 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517723617

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

MANCOVA with children nested within schools, controlling for pretest, gender, grade, and ability, found for total reasons that "the effect size of 0.70 favored the intervention group" at posttest and 0.61 at maintenance; explanations showed d = 0.79 and 0.64.

"At posttest, F(1, 540) = 74.30, p < .001, the effect size of 0.70 favored the intervention group. At maintenance, F(1, 480) = 42.02, p < .001, the effect size of 0.61 favored the intervention group."

Mason et al. 2017 (2)¶

Linda H. Mason, Anne Mong Cramer, Justin D. Garwood, Cheryl Varghese, Jill Hamm, and Allen Murray. (2017). Efficacy of Self-Regulated Strategy Development Instruction for Developing Writers With and Without Disabilities in Rural Schools: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 36(4), 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517723617

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

MANCOVA results for topic sentence inclusion showed "the effect size of 0.21 favored the intervention group" at posttest and 0.26 at maintenance; the article attributes the small gain to 78.22% of treatment and 84.59% of control students already writing effective topic sentences at pretest.

"At posttest, F(1, 540) = 6.36, p = .012, the effect size of 0.21 favored the intervention group. At maintenance, F(1, 480) = 8.86, p = .003, the effect size of 0.26 favored the intervention group."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Writing Skills — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• SRSD intervention effects on total elements vary by writing ability, favoring nonstruggling over struggling writers at maintenance — related
• SRSD for POW + TREE instruction increases the total number of words written by Grade 5–6 rural students compared with control, with smaller effects than for elements — related
• SRSD for POW + TREE instruction increases the total number of persuasive elements written by Grade 5–6 rural students compared with business-as-usual control — related
• SRSD intervention effects on elements and words decrease from posttest to maintenance but remain statistically significant — related